The result was delete. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen ( talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept.and
Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:
Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen ( talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen ( talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept.and
Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:
Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen ( talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)